The Twin Towers at free fall speed

[jay howard]

Because if Jay can infer that heat energy can only be transferred to the steel via air temperature, Then he can set up a straw man and hand wave off energy transfer through direct flame contact, and radiation. And make a spurious claim that "the fires weren't hot enough"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation

Yea, because heating the steel in the towers as they burned is a lot like what happens on a sunny day.

If we knew how hot the gasses were, we could indeed make claims like "the fires were (or were not) hot enough," but as it stands, we don't have enough info. In fact, claims made in either direction are, at this point, spurious. That is, unless you can point to some gas temperatures that lead to steel temperatures in NIST's lab tests.

I suppose you're going to say that's holding the NIST report to some unreasonable standard...

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yea, because heating the steel in the towers as they burned is a lot like what happens on a sunny day.

If the air around you on a sunny day reaches 1700 degrees farenheit, then yes.

Is that hard for you to understand?

If we knew how hot the gasses were, we could indeed make claims like "the fires were (or were not) hot enough," but as it stands, we don't have enough info.

Yes, we do. We know what temperatures burning furniture, paper, carpets, drapes and various other common household and office items generate. We know this from the hundreds of thousands of house, office and other building fires that occur each year. In fact, a normal house fire will reach 1100 degrees in just 3 minutes.

Unless you want to claim that for the first time in history, office building fires did not burn hot enough to weaken steel by 90% not once but three times in one day?

Most people would find such a coincidence unbelieveable.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yea, because heating the steel in the towers as they burned is a lot like what happens on a sunny day.

If we knew how hot the gasses were, we could indeed make claims like "the fires were (or were not) hot enough," but as it stands, we don't have enough info. In fact, claims made in either direction are, at this point, spurious. That is, unless you can point to some gas temperatures that lead to steel temperatures in NIST's lab tests.

I suppose you're going to say that's holding the NIST report to some unreasonable standard...

The test was to verify that the thermal properties OF THE STEEL in a computer model matched that of a real-world scenario.

It did.

Gas temp is irrelevant.

 

[Reactor drone]

Yea, because heating the steel in the towers as they burned is a lot like what happens on a sunny day.

If we knew how hot the gasses were, we could indeed make claims like "the fires were (or were not) hot enough," but as it stands, we don't have enough info. In fact, claims made in either direction are, at this point, spurious. That is, unless you can point to some gas temperatures that lead to steel temperatures in NIST's lab tests.

I suppose you're going to say that's holding the NIST report to some unreasonable standard...

Which specific test are you woried about here? On the multiple workstation test detailed in NCSTAR 1-5E table 2-5 details their measurements.

Spray burner fuel flow was measured
Flame spread was measured with thermocouples and video cameras
Mass loss rate was measured
Heat release rate was measured using oxygen consumption calorimetry in the exhaust duct.
Gas temperature was measured using thermocouple trees
Oxygen,carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide levels were measured

The test in NCSTAR 1-5B also shows gas temperature thermocouple trees set up in the compartment.

So what was the problem again?

 

[jaydeehess]

I think you meant to say natural draft. Forced or induced draft usually come as a result of a fan or blower. I suppose chimney effect could be considered a "naturally induced" draft but I haven't heard it used like that.

I should have said that the chimney fire increases the draft.

I have witnessed a chimney fire burn off (rapidly oxidize) the stainless steel chimney cap and send flames 20 feet above the roofline. One might , if one were prone to using metaphor and similie, say that it looked like someone had a rocket, or jet engine in full afterburner, mounted on the roof.

 

[jaydeehess]

There was some confusion about temperature. Just want to be clear. I'm well aware that 1100C is hotter than 1100F.


.

Yes, my bad for confusing the scales used by the chimney manufacturer.

 

[jaydeehess]

That's an interesting theory. Is there any empirical data from controlled tests in the NIST report to back that up?

Its covered in the courses one would take to become an engineer.

If a structure is built and elements sized with the expectation of certain loads and later it experiences not only greater loads along its major load axis but also , for instance torsion loads or the loss of lateral bracing to a column(column still has the same strength it always had but is more prone to buckling), not orginially designed for at all, then if subjected to high heat the element will fail well before the steel temp it was designed to withstand if all loads were as they ususally are.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yea, because heating the steel in the towers as they burned is a lot like what happens on a sunny day.

In a sense, yes.

If you have ever been near a large bonfire in the winter you will know that while facing the flames your face can become uncomforatbly hot while the backs of your legs remain very cold. Obviously the air temperature is not uncomfortably hot otherwise your legs would be toasty all round. the reason your face is hot and rear is cold is because your face is absorbing radiative energy while of course your rear is in shadow from this radiation.

As for the sun the only way it heats anything on Earth is by radiation. If one thinks of the oft cited, and erroneous, maxims that on the Moon the astronaut's suits had to protect them from the hundreds of degrees above zero temps in the sun and the hundreds of degrees below zero in the shade. Nonsense really since there is no atmospheric temp on the Moon but objects subject to the Sun's IR will heat up, those that are not will radiate their own heat away and thus cool down..

In a closed room radiative absorption WILL cause a greater temp rise in room objects than simple gas temps. They will continue to experience a rise in temperature as long as they are receiving radiation. The gas temps could be regarded as the ambient temperature and thus, as NB says, this is irrellevent. The gas temps will only be rellevent in considering how fast the objects can lose heat to the ambient air via convection.

A fire in a house (or office) can ignite objects on the other side of the room without flame contact and without the ambient gas temp reaching the flashpoint of that object's material. That illustrates that radiation is a major method by which objects heat up.

 

[daws59]

When the Devil starts buying long-johns.

and a sled.

 

[beachnut]

Yea, because heating the steel in the towers as they burned is a lot like what happens on a sunny day.

If we knew how hot the gasses were, we could indeed make claims like "the fires were (or were not) hot enough," but as it stands, we don't have enough info. In fact, claims made in either direction are, at this point, spurious. That is, unless you can point to some gas temperatures that lead to steel temperatures in NIST's lab tests.

I suppose you're going to say that's holding the NIST report to some unreasonable standard...

So being burned alive in the WTC is the same as what happens on a sunny day. What engineering school did you go to?

We can model how hot the gasses were and we find they were hot enough as seen by a real full size model on 911 called the WTC towers which collapsed due to impact, fire, and gravity. You never understood NIST and you are making sure you prove it. Good job, you can excel at exposing your lack of knowledge; we all have skills and you are doing excellent.

No one needs NIST to figure out impact, fires and gravity destroyed the WTC. My engineering analyze that impacts, fire and gravity destroyed the WTC were confirmed by the chief structural engineer of the WTC towers and we both did not need to fault NIST, use NIST, to understand the big picture.

The towers did not fall any where close to free fall speed; the best analogy I have is running 2 miles. In high school I ran 2 miles in 9:43. If we take the collapse at free fall and compare to running 2 miles increasing the free fall to 9:12 minutes:seconds, then the collapsing towers would come in at 12:05, not close to free fall, but last place in a 2 mile race.

Free fall time of 9.2 seconds beats the 12.08 second time to fall, and if you add the fact the pile of debris was 5 stories or more high, we have an incomplete race to the ground making the free fall comparison worse. Adding in the fact parts of the WTC fell well past 20 seconds, we have big problems with the free fall delusions you try to support with zero education in structures, or engineering; or at least zero retention of any science training you now prove you lost.

8 years and if you really wanted to prove your point you would have earned a PhD in structural engineering with a minor in fire safety design and analysis, but instead you prefer to support moronic opinions based on hearsay and lies. BTW, if you earn a PhD in structural engineering you will be cured and thus stop supporting dirt dumb delusions.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Yea, because heating the steel in the towers as they burned is a lot like what happens on a sunny day.

If we knew how hot the gasses were, we could indeed make claims like "the fires were (or were not) hot enough," but as it stands, we don't have enough info. In fact, claims made in either direction are, at this point, spurious. That is, unless you can point to some gas temperatures that lead to steel temperatures in NIST's lab tests.

I suppose you're going to say that's holding the NIST report to some unreasonable standard...

Do you have a theory that fits the evidence better?

 

[carlitos]

o.t/, but...

In high school I ran 2 miles in 9:43.

Wow.

 

[daws59]

Wow.

in high school I ....

 

[Newtons Bit]

Which specific test are you woried about here? On the multiple workstation test detailed in NCSTAR 1-5E table 2-5 details their measurements.

Spray burner fuel flow was measured
Flame spread was measured with thermocouples and video cameras
Mass loss rate was measured
Heat release rate was measured using oxygen consumption calorimetry in the exhaust duct.
Gas temperature was measured using thermocouple trees
Oxygen,carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide levels were measured

The test in NCSTAR 1-5B also shows gas temperature thermocouple trees set up in the compartment.

So what was the problem again?

I suspected that they used a thermocouple for the gas, but was too lazy to go find out. It's noted on page 11. Hell, there's even time vs. temperature graphs of the gas.

 

[daws59]

been reading this thread and not participating much because I'm still waiting for jay Howard to whip out his smoking gun evidence that the twoofer steaming pile (supported by Jesse Ventura)version is fact or is this just typing practice?

 

[jay howard]

The test in NCSTAR 1-5B also shows gas temperature thermocouple trees set up in the compartment.

Where did they report those gas temps? In 1-5B? Please point them out as I've missed them.



.

 

[jaydeehess]

Where did they report those gas temps? In 1-5B? Please point them out as I've missed them.



.

I admit I am not interested enough to go look for it for you. However NB did state that there is a time vs. temp graph of it so you could try looking over the list of illustrations.

 

[jay howard]

We can model how hot the gasses were and we find they were hot enough as seen by a real full size model on 911 called the WTC towers which collapsed due to impact, fire, and gravity.

For anyone needing a textbook example of begging the question.

The towers did not fall any where close to free fall speed; the best analogy I have is running 2 miles. In high school I ran 2 miles in 9:43. If we take the collapse at free fall and compare to running 2 miles increasing the free fall to 9:12 minutes:seconds, then the collapsing towers would come in at 12:05, not close to free fall, but last place in a 2 mile race.

If that's your best analogy, you should stop trying to make them, as that doesn't make any kind of sense whatsoever.

8 years and if you really wanted to prove your point you would have earned a PhD in structural engineering with a minor in fire safety design and analysis, but instead you prefer to support moronic opinions based on hearsay and lies. BTW, if you earn a PhD in structural engineering you will be cured and thus stop supporting dirt dumb delusions.

That's basically the same thing you say every time you post. At least I know you didn't get your degree in metaphor design.



.

 

[alienentity]

been reading this thread and not participating much because I'm still waiting for jay Howard to whip out his smoking gun evidence that the twoofer steaming pile (supported by Jesse Ventura)version is fact or is this just typing practice?

 

[triforcharity]

I've been told by members of the local fire department (Edmonton, Alberta) that common household fires can reach 1700F.

Aand do quite often.